JUDGMENT 1. - These ten appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 17.7.199 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jodhpur in five separate claim cases arising out of a single accident. By the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded separate sums of compensation to tie claimants in the respective claim applications. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3 was exonerated and the respondents non-claimant Talab Khan, the driver and the respondent non-claimant Shiv Ram, the owner of the offending bis were burdened with the liability to shoulder the award 2. The owner of the vehicle, Shiv Ram has preferred five appeals being C.M.A. Nos. (1) C.M.A. No. 806/1999 (Shiv Ram v. Chandan Singh ), (2) C.M.A. No. 807/1999 (Shiv Ram v. Prem Kanwar and Ors. ), (3) C.M.A. No. 865/1999 (Shiv am v. Copal Singh ), (4) C.M.A. No. 866/1999 (Shiv Ram v. Prakash Kanwar ) and (5) C.M.A. No. 867/1999 (Shiv Ram v. Chandan Singh and Ors. ), challenging the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the responsibility to indemnify the claim and also against the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 3. The claimants have preferred five appeals seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded being (1) C.M.A. No. 834/1999 (Chandan Singh v. Talab Khan ), (2) C.M.A. No. 832/1999 (Gopal Singh v. Talab Khan) , (3) C.M.A. No. 835/1999 (Smt. Prakash Kanwar v. Talab Khan) , (4) C.M.A. No. 836/1999 (Smt. Prem Kanwar v. Talab Khan) and (5) C.M.A. No. 833/1999 (Chandan Singh and Anr. v. Talab Khan and Ors. ). 4. Facts in brief are that on 29.9.1995 Gopal Singh along with his daughter Prem Kanwar and other relatives Chandan Singh, Prakash Kanwar, Devendra Singh and Deravar Singh boarded a Jeep bearing registration No. RJ 19-C-5323 (GJ-C-4301) for going from Setrawa to Bagwan Talab. Chandan Singh, Devendra Singh and Gopal Singh were sitting on the front seat of the jeep. Prem Kanwar, Prakash Kanwar and Deravar were sitting at the back. The jeep was being driven by the driver, Ganga Singh. When the jeep reached a place called Bhomiyaji Ka Than at about 5.45 in the evening, a bus bearing registration No. RJ 19-P-1664 allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Talab Khan came to the wrong side of the road and collided with the jeep. All the occupants of the jeep received grievous injuries. When the jeep reached a place called Bhomiyaji Ka Than at about 5.45 in the evening, a bus bearing registration No. RJ 19-P-1664 allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Talab Khan came to the wrong side of the road and collided with the jeep. All the occupants of the jeep received grievous injuries. Devendra Singh expired while being taken to Jodhpur for treatment. An F.I.R. was registered in relation to the accident at P.S. Dechu against Talab Khan for driving the bus rashly and negligently and causing the accident. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him, for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. Five claim petitions were filed by the injured and the legal representatives of Devendra Singh before the learned M.A.C.T. No. 1, Jodhpur praying for varying sums of compensation. 5. The Insurance Company filed written statements in all the claims and sought exoneration on the ground that the bus driver was not having licence of appropriate category and thus there was a breach of policy conditions. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration of the claim applications:- " 1- vk;k iz'uxr okgu cl la[;k vkj0ts0 19&ih&1664 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k ,d ds }kjk fnukad 29-9-1995 dks lsrjkok ls ckxoku rkykc ekxZ ij HkkSfe;k th ds Fkku ds ikl mDr okgu dks mis{kk o mrkoysiu ls rst xfr ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk eas izkFkhZ@izkFkhZx.k ds pksVsa vkbZ ,oa nsosUnzflag dh e`R;q gks xbZ\ 2- vk;k mDr okgu pkyd rd mDr okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k nks ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk\ 3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k rhu chek dEiuh }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku dh izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds en~nsutj chek dEiuh vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrh gS ugha rks bldk izHkko\ 4- vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos@nkoksa esa vafdr iz'uxr~ jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k; lEer~ jkf'k ik ldrs gSa rks dkSu dkSu nkosnkj fdruh fdruh jkf'k fdl fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ik ldrs gSa\ " 7. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim applications awarded compensation to the various claimants as below:- 1. Claim Application No. 265/1996 (Gopal Singh v. Talab Khan ) was filed by the claimant Gopal Singh seeking compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- on account of the injuries received by him. The Tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim applications awarded compensation to the various claimants as below:- 1. Claim Application No. 265/1996 (Gopal Singh v. Talab Khan ) was filed by the claimant Gopal Singh seeking compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- on account of the injuries received by him. The Tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs. 95,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the application. 2. Claim Application No. 267/1996 (Prem Kanwar v. Talab Khan ) was filed by Prem Kanwar claiming compensation of Rs. 6,80,000/- on account of the injuries received by her. The Tribunal awarded her compensation of Rs. 53,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. Claim Application No. 268/1996 (Chandan Singh v. Talab Khan ) was filed by Chandan Singh seeking compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- on account of the injuries received by him in the accident. The learned Tribunal awarded him compensation of Rs. 61,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim application. 4. Claim Application No. 269/1996 (Prakash Kanwar v. Talab Khan ) was filed by the injured Prakash Kanwar seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by her in the accident. The learned Tribunal awarded her compensation of Rs. 12,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim application. 5. Claim Application No. 266/1996 (Chandan Singh and Anr. v. Talab Khan and Ors.) was filed by Chandan Singh and his wife seeking compensation of Rs. 17,10,000/- on account of the death of their son, Devendra Singh in the accident. The learned Tribunal awarded them a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim application. 8. The Tribunal whilst deciding the issues, upheld the defence/objection taken by the Insurance Company that the bus driver, Talab Khan was not having a licence of appropriate category to drive the bus and exonerated it from the burden of satisfying the award. Accordingly, the bus owner Shiv Ram, and the driver Talab Khan were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. 9. The appeals filed by the vehicle owner Shiv Ram are taken up for consideration at first. 10. Accordingly, the bus owner Shiv Ram, and the driver Talab Khan were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. 9. The appeals filed by the vehicle owner Shiv Ram are taken up for consideration at first. 10. Shri Beniwal, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that Shiv Ram had sold his vehicle to one Ram Singh much before the accident and thus he was wrongly held responsible to satisfy the award. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this contention and have gone through the impugned judgment. 12. Whilst deciding the issue No. 2 framed in this regard, learned Tribunal held that the plea taken by the appellant Shiv Ram claiming that he had transferred the vehicle to Ram Singh was not acceptable. The insurance policy, the permit and the finance documents all stood in the name of Shiv Ram when the bus met with the accident. Though an agreement was claimed to have been executed between the appellant Shiv Ram and Ram Singh but no sale letter was executed for transfer of the bus. No information regarding the vehicle having been transferred was given to the Transport Department. The driver Talab Khan in his deposition stated that the bus was owned by Shiv Ram and that Ram Singh used to manage the same. Accordingly, it was held that the ownership and control of the bus at the time of the accident was that of Shiv Ram. 13. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Counsel for the appellant Shiv Ram (the owner of the bus) valiantly attempted to assail the above finding of the Tribunal but he too was not in position to dispute the fact that ail the documents of the bus in question stood in the name of Shiv Ram when it met with the accident. It was also not disputed that no intimation or information was given to the Transport Department regarding the transfer of the vehicle. Thus, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the ownership and control of the bus vesting in the appellant Shiv Ram is not fit to be accepted. 14. Thus, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the ownership and control of the bus vesting in the appellant Shiv Ram is not fit to be accepted. 14. The next contention which the learned Counsel advanced was regarding the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue No. 3 whereby the non-claimant Insurance Company was exonerated from the responsibility to satisfy the award by upholding its defence breach of policy conditions on the basis of category of the licence held by the driver. Learned Counsel submitted that the driver Talab Khan was having a licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. As per the definition given in Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a transport vehicle includes a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or private service vehicle. He thus submitted that though the licence issued to Talab Khan bore a specific endorsement authorising him to drive a H.G.V. (Heavy Goods Vehicle) but simultaneously it also authorised him to drive all categories of transport vehicles. As per the learned Counsel, the authorisation given vide the licence Ex.A-l-A to drive a transport vehicle would include all categories of transport vehicles and consequently also the bus involved in the accident. Thus, he contended that there was no breach of the policy conditions as the driver Talab Khan was holding a valid licence authorising him to drive the bus involved in the accident. He, therefore, prayed that the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the burden to satisfy the award by upholding the defence of breach of policy conditions is absolutely unjust, illegal and deserves to be set aside. 15. Mr. B.K. Mehar, learned Counsel for the respondent Talab Khan (driver) and Mr. Rajesh Panwar learned Counsel for the claimants supported the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant Shiv Ram and urged that the learned Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company from the burden to satisfy the award. It was urged that the authorisation to drive a transport vehicle would include the authority to drive a public service vehicle and which includes a bus. Thus, they also urged that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company deserves to be set aside. 16. Per contra, Mr. It was urged that the authorisation to drive a transport vehicle would include the authority to drive a public service vehicle and which includes a bus. Thus, they also urged that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company deserves to be set aside. 16. Per contra, Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel or the appellant, Shiv Ram, and the Counsel appearing for the respondent bus driver and the claimants. He submitted that the licence Ex.A-l-A specifically restricts the authority of the driver to drive a transport vehicle of the category i.G.V. only. Thus, as per him the driver was not authorised to drive a bus which s a public service vehicle and consequently, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the defence raised by the Insurance Company regarding lack of valid licence with the driver and the resultant breach of policy conditions. 17. The decision on this contention i.e. the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the burden to satisfy the award will have a material bearing on the whole case. The licence Ex.A-l-A which was issued to the driver Talab Khan bears on endorsement dated 13.7.1993 authorising him to drive a transport vehicle alongwith a specific reference to H.G.V. (Heavy Goods Vehicle). The said endorsement on the licence was not disputed by any of the parties to the case. The learned Tribunal itself whilst deciding issue No. 3 vide para Nos. 24 to 26 of the impugned judgment held that the licence Ex4 1 authorised the driver Talab Khan to drive a "heavy goods vehicle" but that authorisation would not cover a "public transport vehicle". Accordingly, holding that the driver was not having an effective and valid licence to drive the offending bus, the defence of violation of policy conditions raised by the Insurance Company was upheld by the Tribunal. 18. For the purpose of appreciating the rival arguments advanced before this Court, the authorisation/endorsement appended by the Licensing Authority on the driver Taiab Khan is licence Ex.A-l-A on 13.7.1993 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "No. MT 16673 Authorised to drive transport vehicle H.G.V. only w.e.f. 13.7.1993." 19. From a bare reading of this endorsement, it becomes apparent that the driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle w.e.f. 13.7.1993. 20. From a bare reading of this endorsement, it becomes apparent that the driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle w.e.f. 13.7.1993. 20. For a better appreciation of the rival arguments, certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which have a material bearing on the issue are reproduced herein below:-Section 2(47):- "Transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." 21. As per Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was introduced by way of Amendment Act of 1994, w.e.f. 14.11.1994 various categories of driving licences were crystallized. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (f) road-roller; (g) motor vehicle of a specified description." [Emphasis supplied] 22. Section 217(2)(b) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act read as below:- "217. Repeals and Savings.-1.......................... 2..................... (b) Any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to have effect after such commencement under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act had not been passed; (c) Any document referring to any of the repealed enactments or the provisions thereof, shall be construed as referring to this Act or to the corresponding provision of this Act." 23. Thus, sub-clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 217 conjointly read together make it clear that a licence issued or granted under the old Act shall continue to have effect after such commencement and shall be construed as referring to this Act or to the corresponding provisions of this Act. 24. Consequently, as soon as the said amendment came into effect i.e. w.e.f. 14.11.1994 for the purpose of driving licence, different categories of transport vehicles were amalgamated under a solitary head i.e. transport vehicle. 24. Consequently, as soon as the said amendment came into effect i.e. w.e.f. 14.11.1994 for the purpose of driving licence, different categories of transport vehicles were amalgamated under a solitary head i.e. transport vehicle. Consequently as soon as the amendment came into force i.e. from 14.11.1994 onwards, any person holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle or having an endorsement on his licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle would deemed to be authorised to drive all categories of transport vehicles including a bus. The accident occurred on 29.9.1995. As the licence issued to the driver Talab Khan was bearing an endorsement dated 13.7.1993 made by the District Transport Officer, Jodhpur authorising him to drive a transport vehicle for a period of three years w.e.f. 13.7.1993, it has to be held that from 14.11.1994 onwards, Talab Khan was entitled to drive a public service vehicle as well as a heavy goods vehicle and consequently the bus involved in the accident Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the bus was not being driven in the breach of the policy conditions as held by the Tribunal. 25. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal whilst deciding issue No. 3, exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to shoulder the burden of the award, is illegal and is hereby quashed and reversed. The Insurance Company was thus liable to indemnify the insured and satisfy the decree in terms of the insurance policy. 26. Thus, the appeals filed by Shiv Ram deserve to be accepted on this point Consequently, the respondent No. 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant Shiv Ram and the driver Talab Khan shall be jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. 27. Having decided the issue of liability, the question regarding the enhancement in the compensation needs to be examined individually in each appeal. 28. The following five appeals have been filed by the respective appellant claimants, claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded to them respectively, by the learned M.A.C.T. No. 1, Jodhpur. For the sake of convenience and clarity, these appeals are being dealt with separately. 1. C.M.A. Case No. 832/1999 Copal Singh v. Talab Khan and Ors. : 29. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the appellant claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal granted him a paltry compensation of Rs. For the sake of convenience and clarity, these appeals are being dealt with separately. 1. C.M.A. Case No. 832/1999 Copal Singh v. Talab Khan and Ors. : 29. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the appellant claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal granted him a paltry compensation of Rs. 95,000/- for the injuries suffered by him which is unjust and inadequate. He urged that the learned Tribunal erred by not granting compensation to the appellant under the head of Loss of Future Income looking to the nature of injuries received in the accident and 23% permanent Physical Disability suffered by him as a result of the injuries. Thus, he prays that the compensation be enhanced appropriately. 30. Mr. Beniwal, Mr. Mehar and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsels for the respondents, submitted that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation to the appellant under all probable heads. Thus, the same need not be interfered with. 31. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as well as the record. 32. The appellant, Gopal Singh received 1 Grievous Injury and 3 Simple Injuries in the accident. Ex.-31, the Permanent Disability Certificate issued to the appellant certifies that he sustained 23% Disability in the whole body. He also under went an operation. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to the appellant by the learned Tribunal under the head of Pain and Suffering is insufficient and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. 33. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred by not awarding any compensation to the appellant under the head of Loss of Future Income, does not hold water. The Tribunal held that as the appellant was in a Government Job at the time of the accident, there was no loss of income as a result of the injuries received in the accident or due to the permanent disability. Despite this the Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs. 33,000/- for 23% physical disability suffered by the claimant which in the opinion of this Court he was not even entitled for. 34. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant Gopal Singh is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T. No. 1, Jodhpur is modified and is enhanced by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 33,000/- for 23% physical disability suffered by the claimant which in the opinion of this Court he was not even entitled for. 34. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant Gopal Singh is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T. No. 1, Jodhpur is modified and is enhanced by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim. 2. C.M.A. Case No. 836/1999 Smt. Prem Kanwar v. Talab Khan and Ors. : 35. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the appellant claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs. 53,000/- only to the appellant for the injuries suffered by her which is unjustly low and inadequate. He also urged that the learned Tribunal erred by not granting compensation to the appellant under the head of Loss of Future Income ignoring the fact that she had a monthly income by doing animal husbandry work. As per him, the appellant was not able to carry out her work due to the injuries and the 12.5% Physical Disability suffered in the accident Thus, he prayed that the compensation awarded to the appellant deserves to be enhanced appropriately. 36. Mr. Beniwal, Mr. Mehar and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsels for the respondents, submitted that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation under all probable heads. Thus, the same need not be interfered with. 37. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as well as the record. 38. As per the Medico-legal certificate Ex.-38 issued to the claimant Smt Prem Kanwar, she sustained two round scars or the left side of forearm, a fracture on the 10th rib on the left side and a fracture olecranum on the left side. Looking to the nature of injuries caused to the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the injuries are not such that the disability caused to her would sustain for a long period or the remainder of her life. The fracture of left rib and ulna bone are not such injuries which cannot be treated completely. Thus, the learned Tribunal rightly did not award to the appellant any amount under the head of loss future income. The fracture of left rib and ulna bone are not such injuries which cannot be treated completely. Thus, the learned Tribunal rightly did not award to the appellant any amount under the head of loss future income. However, looking to the nature of the injuries received by her, the compensation awarded to the appellant under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of permanent disability is enhanced to Rs. 35,000/-. Thus the appellant would be now entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 73,000/-. 39. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant Prem Kanwar is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T. No. 1, Jodhpur is modified and is enhanced in the above terms along with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount. 3. C.M.A. Case No. 834/1999 Chandan Singh v. Talab Khan & Ors. : 40. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the learned Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs. 61,000/- to the claimant which is unjustly low and meagre. He also urged that the learned Tribunal erred by not granting compensation to the appellant under the head of Loss of Future income looking to the injuries and the resultant 15% Physical Disability suffered by him. He also urged that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of Pain and Suffering is also inappropriate and unjust. Thus, he prays that the compensation be enhanced appropriately. 41. Mr. Beniwal, Mr. Mehar and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsels for the respondents, submitted that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation to the appellant under all probable heads. Thus, the same need not be interfered with. 42. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as well as the record. 43. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded as compensation for permanent disability suffered by him as a result of the injuries received in the accident. 44. As per the Medico-legal certificate, Ex.-23, the appellant, Chandan Singh, sustained 15% partial permanent disability in his whole body. The appellant was a Government Servant at the time of the accident. 30,000/- was awarded as compensation for permanent disability suffered by him as a result of the injuries received in the accident. 44. As per the Medico-legal certificate, Ex.-23, the appellant, Chandan Singh, sustained 15% partial permanent disability in his whole body. The appellant was a Government Servant at the time of the accident. Thus, despite the nature of injuries and Permanent Disability caused to him, it cannot be held that Chandan Singh would face or would have faced any difficulty in performing his duties or would suffer a consequent loss of income. The learned Tribunal has correctly evaluated the compensation awardable to the claimant, which does not call for any interference. 45. Thus, this appeal being bereft of any merit is hereby rejected. 4. C.M.A. Case No. 835/1999 Smt. Prakash Kanwar v. Talab Khan and Ors. : 46. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the method adopted by the learned Tribunal whilst awarding compensation to the appellant is totally erroneous and faulty. He submitted that the learned Tribunal had not followed the mandatory criterion of awarding compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earning Capacity. He also submitted that the appellant was a woman of 30 years of age and used to earn around Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing stitching work, embroidery, etc. He, thus, urged that compensation be awarded under the mandatory heads and be enhanced appropriately. 47. Mr. Beniwal, Mr. Mehar and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsels for the respondents, submitted that in accordance with the medical reports of the appellant, she did not receive any injury on her hands, therefore, her earning capacity looking to the nature of the work she was doing would not have been affected at all. Thus, they urged that the Tribunal had granted just and proper compensation under all probable heads and the same need not be interfered with. 48. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment impugned and the material available on record. 49. As per the medical documents available on record, the appellant suffered a conclusion and tenderness on her spine. The certificate of disability issued by the doctor refers to 10% disability in relation to her body as a whole. However, the medical documents do not refer to any grievous injury having been caused to the appellant. The discharge ticket specially refers to a neuro vascular deficit. The certificate of disability issued by the doctor refers to 10% disability in relation to her body as a whole. However, the medical documents do not refer to any grievous injury having been caused to the appellant. The discharge ticket specially refers to a neuro vascular deficit. Thus, the appellant received simply injures and the award passed by the Tribunal granting her compensation of Rs. 12,000/- cannot be said to be unjust and does not call for any enhancement. 50. The appeal filed by the appellant Prakash Kanwar, is hereby rejected. 5. C.M.A. Case No. 833/1999 Chandan Singh and Anr. v. Talab Khan and Ors. : 51. Mr. Panwar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal granted them total compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the death of their son Devendra Singh in the accident which is unjustly low and inappropriate considering the fact that the deceased was about 5 years of age at the time of his death. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation in accordance with the mandatory criterion by assessing the deceased's income and applying the multiplier as per his age. He, thus, urged that compensation be awarded under the mandatory heads as well as enhanced appropriately. 52. Mr. Beniwal, Mr. Mehar and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsels for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Tribunal rightly awarded a lump sum compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Devendra Singh and the quantum of compensation does not require any interference in appeal. 53. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and the material available on record. 54. As the deceased, Devendra Singh was just 5 years old at the time of his death, the fact that the he had his whole life in front of him cannot be disputed. However, since Devendra Singh was very young at the time of his death, assessment of his earning capacity in future could not be ascertained with any degree of surety. Considering the fact that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants deserve to awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- as a lump sum award under pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary loss caused by his death. 55. Considering the fact that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants deserve to awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- as a lump sum award under pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary loss caused by his death. 55. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T. No. 1, Jodhpur is modified and is enhanced in the above terms. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. 56. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the owner Shiv Ram being No. 809/1999, 807/1999, 865/1999, 866/1999 and 867/1999 are partly accepted and now it is directed that the appellant Shiv Ram, the driver Talab Khan as well as the Oriental Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. The appeals No. 836/1999 (Prem Kanwar v. Talab Khan and Ors. ), 832/1999 (Gopal Singh v. Talab Khan and Ors. ) and 833/1999 (Chandan Singh and Anr. v. Talab Khan and Ors. ) are partly allowed. The appeals No. 835/1999 (Smt. Prakash Kanwar v. Talab Khan and Ors. ) and 834/1999 Chandan Singh v. Talab Khan and Ors. are rejected. 57. The judgment and award dated 17.7.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Jodhpur stands modified accordingly. Record be sent back.No costs.Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected appeals.Appeal Nos. 806, 807, 865, 866, 867, 832, 833, 836/1999 partly allowed and Appeal Nos. 834, 835/1999 dismissed. *******